About your Search

20121006
20121014
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
. it's working with the arab league to identify people to help force assad out of power a year after president obama said, we want assad out of power. he has substantive things to talk about on the debate stage when they debate foreign policy in two weeks and that ad is now irrelevant. >> don't you think this is a case of him saying, i'll do the things the president is trying to do but do them more effectively? >> there's a fair case to make and there's an opening for that. >> i agree. i'm not saying that's a bad thing. >> there's an opening the size of a pin drop. he didn't lay out his strategy for peace in israel. on iran, the best he could come up with was, i'm going to get tougher on iran because i'm going to have tougher sanctions. >> when barack obama came to office, he said, i'm not george w. bush, so therefore, i can negotiate with iran. >> he said he would open up all doors but he wasn't going to give you a seat at the table unless you wanted to come and talk peace. >> we have unsolicited advice on the other side of the break including helpful hints for donald trump. stay wi
, when the mullas in iran war attacking their people. we should not have called assad a reformer when he was turning russian provided guns on his own people. we should always stand up for peace, democracy and individual rights and not be imposing these devastating defense cuts. because what that does, when we show -- when we look weak, our enemies are much more willing to test us. and our allies are -- >> with all due respect, that's a bunch of malarkey. >> why is that so? >> nothing he said is accurate. >> be specific. >> i will be very specific. number one, this lecture on embassy security. the congressman here cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for. number one. so much for the embassy security piece. number two, governor romney, before he knew the facts, before he knew that our ambassador was killed, he was out making a political statement, which was panned by the media around the world. and this talk about this weakness. i don't understand what my friend is talking about here. this is a president who has gone out and done everything he had said he
do things differently? we wouldn't refer to bashar al assad as a reformer when he's killing his own civilians with his russian provided weapons. we wouldn't be outsourcing our foreign policy to the united states giving vladimir putin veto power over our efforts to try and deal with this issue. >> cnn international's hala gorani with me again after this debate. i got goose bumps or chills when martha raddatz said what if bashar al assad doesn't go away, but they both agree no boots on the ground in syria. >> looking back and not looking forward. paul ryan is talking about what potentially a romney/ryan ticket would have done differently if they had been in charge, identify rebel groups, identify freedom fighters, perhaps help those that the united states might want to push forward as far as the future leadership of syria is concerned a little bit earlier than the obama administration has. but as far as plans for what happens from this point on, no. and there is no appetite from the united states or quite frankly any country in the western world for boots on the ground in syria. as we
of arming the syrians, finding those syrian moderates, those pro-western rebels fighting bashar al assad, that may be a new strategy on the part of romney as opposed to the obama administration which has been totally reluctant to arm any of the rebels in syria fearing those weapons could wind up in the hands of the so-called terrorist, the bad guys, if you will. that's a clear differentiation, but i think from the american political perspective, there's no great desire to get involved militarily on the ground or in the air for that matter in syria or elsewhere. >> all right. well, thank you very much. appreciate it. of course, we're fwog bring in fareed zakaria to talk about this. fareed in new york. of course, you were watching this as well, and one of the points that you brought up is that these two leaders, these two men really see eye to eye on a lot of foreign policy issues. the only one that we really heard that was different was what you had actually talked about and that was romney's stance on arming the syrian rebels. how does the united states go about doing that, because we kn
that they obtain the arms they need to defeat assad's tanks and helicopters and fighter jets. iran is sending arms to assad because they know his downfall would be a strategic defeat for him. we should be working no less vigorously through our international partners to support the many syrians who would deliver that defeat to iran, whether sitting on the sidelines. it is essential that we develop influence with those forces in syria that will one day lead a country that sits at the heart of the middle east. >> mitt romney is saying, arm the rebels. again, the question being how well do we know them, how do we know which rebels we should be arming, that's the question for you. >> the wording there is interesting. he's not saying i believe the united states should arm the rebels, he's saying we want to make sure that they obtain rebels with the help of our partners and some would argue, look, the vetting of these rebel groups is being done already by the obama administration. there are reports of a cia presence there at the border already trying to figure out who is who, who is friendly who is not s
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)